Opposing Libertarianism may seem counter-intuitive until you realize that it’s just another form of moral relativism.

A limited federal government with enumerated powers is a vitally important American Constitutional principle. If it isn't listed in Article 1 Section 8, the federal government has no Constitutional business even addressing it in law. Working to undo that Constitutional principle is an un-Constitutional and un-American activity, whether done by Marxists, Anarchists or Libertarians.

Opposing Libertarianism does not mean opposing such things as
individual Liberty, or Conservatism, by any means. My only real problem
with the Libertarian position involves its complete lack of a fixed
moral standard. The Libertarian approach says that the citizen is free
to do anything at all so long as he dose not infringe on any other
citizen’s rights or hurt any other citizen. And that is an idea that
sounds fine, on its face. But we need to think about it a little bit.

This position is another move into moral relativism. It operates to oppose any commonly held fixed sense of right and wrong for a people and a nation. We call a commonly held cultural sense of right versus wrong an ethos; in America, the Judeo-Christian Ethos
provides this fixed set of clearly recognizable moral standards. It
forms the very foundation for our civil law and our Constitution. It
was the guiding ethos of the founders, and it is the guiding ethos of
the overwhelming majority in the current population of America.

We pointed to the need for a fixed, consistent, familiar national moral standard in the Definition of Pro-American Webpage, and again in the Definition of Anti-American
Webpage. More than anything else, it is a distinct cultural ethos that
defines a unique people, and it is a unique people who make a nation.
Ethos is all wrapped up in morality. Morality is all wrapped up in
religion. Whether anyone likes or not, whether anyone admits it or not,
America is, overwhelmingly, a Christian nation. Our common sense of
right versus wrong comes out of our Judeo-Christian religion.

The Libertarian defines many immoral activities as victimless crimes
and therefore does not condemn them, and would legalize and un-restrain
them. Many of these immoral activities are of a sexual nature, and
many involve illegal drug usage.

It is my contention that
totally de-criminalized and unrestrained immoral actions are bad, and
not good, for the overall culture. We can examine some possible
results, affecting you, via the exercise of thought experiments. Let us
assume that the Libertarian position becomes the fixed law, and is now
perfectly in place in America.

A teacher in a school, whether private or public, would
feel perfectly free to smuggle your kid out of class, into an abortion
clinic, and back into class, without your consent or even knowledge of
the event. Your adult neighbor might feel perfectly free to help your
kid shoot up with heroin for the first time. A disease-ridden hooker in
the neighborhood might decide to give your kid a freebie.

You might be sharing the highways not only with the occasional drunk,
but with someone who just dropped acid. Doped no-hopers might be
staggering about or sleeping it off in the middle of the street, as they
do in Holland, where it’s legal. Hookers may be jiggling and strutting
their stuff in store windows, giving a whole new meaning to the term
“window shopping,” as they do in Holland, where it’s legal.

The real question becomes, what kind of a people are
we, and what kind of a nation is this? Are we pagans, are we atheists,
or are we Christians and Jews?

State’s Rights are important, in accordance with the Rule Of Subsidiarity,
and we see in America that the moral norm shifts geographically.
States are and should be perfectly free to outlaw or legalize anything
that suits the voters.

Las Vegas is a city that was virtually invented by organized crime families, and Nevada is as near as you can get to an anything-goes state. Prostitution is legalized, and the citizens seem to have no problem with that. ‘Vegas advertises itself to be Sin City.

On the other side of that coin, abortion as practiced
today was illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, by
legislated, representative law, before it was legalized by
unconstitutional judicial fiat. The Court, and both other branches of
Federal government, had no business whatsoever undoing representative
State law all across the land. See the Abortion In America Webpage for the disgusting, un-Constitutional details of how this came about, in the face of the “represented” people.

I am so tired of hearing
someone say how they personally despise homosexuality but that they see
nothing wrong with it being someone else’s choice. If something is
right, then it right for everyone. If it is wrong, then it is wrong for
everyone. You are not and cannot be an island; a common sense of right
and wrong, or the lack of one, will most certainly affect you, unless
you move into a cave or something weird.

”When the fit hits the shan, I’m not going to ask the guy in the
foxhole next to me if he’s gay or not” Is the statement most frequently
presented by someone who never served. Or if he did, he didn’t serve in
the ranks. What about all the rest of the time? Might you ask that
question before taking a shower with him? How about when using the
buddy system in the field, where you pour cans of water over each other
in order to bathe? How about before you crawl into your two-man pup
tent with him? No; that question may only be presented by the
Libertarian in the absolutely most inappropriate time for the subject
matter. It is on the battlefield, and only the battlefield, where the
issue has any importance whatsoever.

Have you ever noticed how commentators and
editorialists and journalists always interview the homosexuals and never
the heterosexuals in the service regarding issues of homosexuality?
The heterosexual viewpoint is censored.

Morality, properly understood, is not a morality for
me, but not for thee. Nor can it be a morality for thee, but not for
me. We either have a fixed moral norm, or we do not. Liberty is not
really possible for long in the absence of any fixed moral norm, any
common sense of right and wrong that defines us as a people.

What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation is this?

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)

Comments

This is just a lot of divisive homophobic propaganda. Your type is
always trying to force everyone into the same box, to behave in your
approved way and to appear as you would have them appear. There are a
lot more gays in the military than you know, and they are causing no
problems at all, and they are living in fear of being outed, thanks to
people like you. Why can’t you just leave people alone? Why must you
bother them when they are not bothering you?

The shoe is on the other foot, my friend. I force no
one to do anything. On the other hand, your position seeks to force
others into close company they do not wish to keep, and into public
acceptance of the unacceptable. By law, or executive order, or edict.
Against our will. We are to have nothing to say about it.

And so I must return your question to you: why must you bother us when we are not bothering you?

Take your chosen behaviors back to the gutter where they belong and leave the rest of us alone.

First point: While I agree with most of what you say,
I’m not sure I want my grand daughter to grow up confined by rigidly
fixed rules of some denomination of what you call Judeo-Christianity.
You say Catholicism is the best, but someone else says that’s not so,
and provides good reasons. I’ve looked at your site and it looks like
you know that. There’s a lot to choose from. The Libertarian position
seems to be the best all around way to go, making your own way so long
as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.

Second point: What do you think of the Constitution
Party, or of changing the nature and the name of the Republican Party to
the Constitution Party and acting accordingly?

Buddy

Date: Sun Jun 05 11:05:28 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Buddy:

Re your first point: The Libertarian position seeks to
legalize all “victimless crime.” For the sake of argument, let’s say
the they have been successful and there is no more victimless crime in
America. You should be just as willing to allow your grand daughter to
experiment with various drugs, sexual practices and so forth as you
would grant to your unknown neighbor in some other state, some other
locality or right next door.

So, you should buy your grand daughter her first crack
pipe; better you than some stranger. You should learn what you need to
know to help her correctly shoot up with heroin the first time so she
doesn’t hurt herself. You should be there for her first acid trip. You
should help her build a meth lab so she doesn’t poison herself or blow
herself up.

Get her all the latest safe-sex and contraceptive
paraphernalia, and introduce her to some fornicators and lesbians so she
can experiment with her sexuality and see what she prefers. Introduce
her to her friendly neighborhood abortionist for whenever the
contraception might fail. Take her to a whore house to let her learn
about a possible career choice. Maybe she could do an apprenticeship
there.

Re your second point: The Constitution Party.

Recently a young man named Eric Deaton spoke to us at the
Huber Heights Patriots meeting. He is running for United States Senate
from Ohio on the Constitution Party Ticket. I liked everything about
him; I liked every thing he said, every thing he stood for, and
everything about his Party as he described it. His talk was a
knock-out; everyone agreed he would make an excellent Senator and be not
just a representative, not just a Senator, but an actual champion for us all and for our cause.

However, I had to tell him that, as much as I liked him
and what he stood for, I could not vote for him. My only reason
regards the fact that there is one and only one way that the Obamunists
could possibly win anywhere in the upcoming November elections, and that
is if they manage to split our vote. A third Party will do that very
thing.

The time for new political Party building is not during
an election cycle when so much is at stake. Our very national survival
depends very much on this one election. I agree with every single
thing I heard Eric Deaton say; he is the best candidate I have heard or
read about; I am as pissed off as anyone at some of our Republican
politicos; but I cannot vote for any national candidate in this election
who is not Republican. Local, maybe; state level, possibly; national
level – absolutely not. This election is just too important. I wish
Eric Deaton had run as a Republican. What we need is a Republican Party
with more candidates like Eric Deaton.

It is cruel to say such things about someone’s grandchild. You know
nothing about how the child is raised. And there is no difference
between the two major political parties so the Republicans do not
deserve to be in power. They have earned nothing but contempt.

Date: Tue Jul 13 06:18:19 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Monique:

If the grandparent embraces Libertarian “morality” then
the grandparent needs to pass that “morality” on to his grandchildren.
That means acceptance of “safe” fornication, “discrete” adultery and
“open” homosexuality. And it means legalized dope. So long as the none
of the grandchild’s actions infringe on anyone else’s life, rights or
property, anything goes, so, if it feels good, do it.

The only possible chance that the solidly united and
indivisible minority of American Marxists have of winning any national
political office is to divide our vote against them. If you want a
Marxist senator or a Marxist representative then vote for a candidate
other than a Republican, and watch it happen.

As for me, I still align my moral standards with those
of the founding fathers. Dishonoring your father or mother is immoral.
The unwarranted taking of any innocent human life is immoral. Adultery
is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Lying is immoral. Coveting
another’s wife is immoral. Coveting another’s property is immoral.
Fornication is immoral. Sodomy is immoral. Fraud, cheating, etc., is
immoral. Being inhospitable or uncharitable is immoral. There is
nothing tough about this. These things are immoral for ALL of us, not just some of us.

This is the basis – the very foundation – for our
supposedly representative civil law. Go take a good look at the Ten
Commandments all over the outside and the inside of our US Supreme Court
building at the Church and State in Art page, and then come back here and tell me about the supposed superiority of Libertarian “morality.”

Sorry for the late comment, may be a couple years late, but I hope
you respond. I think you are misrepresenting libertarianism somewhat.
There are victimless crimes, and there are crimes that may not have a
victim, but still put others in danger. You mention driving on the road
with someone who has dropped acid. Under most modern views of
libertarianism, this would still be a crime. They are putting others in
danger by doing so, and should be punished. Just as we do not ban
alcohol for all just because some people abuse it, we should not ban
narcotics for all because some abuse it. (I am not completely sure if
you are against the banning of alcohol.) As long as someone does
something that does not put others in harm, they should have the right
to. And I have to disagree with you about your belief that one can
believe something is wrong, but also believe that someone else should
have the right to do it. I think you can believe this. I do not use
illegal drugs, but if someone wants to smoke weed in their house, that
is their business. I am not gay, but if somebody wants to have sex with
someone of the same sex, that is not the government's business. I
think it's wrong, but I do not want the government enforcing it. You
mention Holland a few times, in a somewhat deprecating tone. They have
achieved a more libertarian state. But let me give you a couple more
examples, Portugal about a decade ago decriminalized drugs. They did
not arrest anyone for using, but would arrest for selling as they had
been. People made the argument that more people would use drugs in
Portugal than ever before. But you know what? With drugs
decriminalized, crime went down, and drug abuse went down. The
government decriminalzed it, but they did not say it was ok to do.
Rather, they spent more money on allowing for voluntary rehab centers,
and things like needle exchange programs for heroin users, and the
country is much better off for it. I can think something is immoral,
but I think forbidding it for all of society is even more immoral.

Date: Sat Jun 30 06:00:14 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jimmy:

Terminology such as “most modern views of Libertarianism” is too
vague to apply to a whole nation. A thing is either wrong or it is
right. Most if not all of the victimless crimes Libertarians
speak of are already covered, or not covered, under local law and/or
state law. The legislative powers of the federal government are limited
and enumerated; the federal government has no constitutional business
legislating on these topics.

Case law appealed to the Supreme Court should be simply
adjudicated based upon the existing law in the jurisdiction in which the
event occurred, and not make new national law through precedent. The
Court has no constitutional business making new law through judicial
decisions that may affect the whole of the United States. Laws, or
“constitutional principles” affecting the whole nation that have been
established in such a manner should be reversed, set aside or otherwise
voided by legislative action, because new law is the exclusive
constitutional domain of the Congress.

If a Libertarian doesn’t like the local law or the state law where he lives, he can either work to change it, or he can move.

Regarding what’s right or wrong for you versus what’s right or
wrong for me, I’m sure you will agree that we both should operate under
some common sense of predictable behavior as neighbors. The test for me
is this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get
stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it
should be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is
acceptable for them to do that behavior too. The same test should apply
to prostitution, to various sexual perversions, to abortion, etc.,
etc., etc.

The problem is that right and wrong is a simple black and white
issue that is most frequently overly complicated by people looking for
excuses to justify some abuse of it. History has shown and we have seen
where Western culture goes after God is divorced from the conversation,
in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Red China and eleswhere.
Liberals are seldom satisfied with a behavior being made legal for them;
they eventually want that behavior forced on the rest of us too. We
must be made, by law, to approve of it and not oppose it, and not even
speak ill of it.

Thank you for your response. You state that: "The test for me is
this: If it is deemed to be acceptable for someone to regularly get
stoned in some manner on some substance in his own house, then it should
be deemed acceptable for me to teach my children that it is acceptable
for them to do that behavior too." I think you are blurring the line
between acceptable and legal. Currently, it is legal for a person to
get belligerently intoxicated within one's own home. I do not think
that this would be viewed as acceptable, but it is certainly legal. You
may teach your children that it is wrong to do so, and I will to, but
it is still legal. Now I do not smoke weed or use drugs, besides the
occasional indulgence in alcohol or tobacco, but I think people should
still have the right to use them. Do I consider drug use wrong? Yes,
but I think that the government intervention in what someone puts into
their body does more harm than good. Obviously there are laws that
currently govern these things such as drug use, prostitution, etc... But
I as a whole the laws as wrong. Legalized prostitution and legalized
drug use has made other countries safer. Legalized and regulated
prostitution allows for STD checks, which makes all parties safer, and
allows for police dollars to be spent not on the prostitutes who
willingly are working out there, but allows the police to help those
prostitutes being abused by pimps or allows prostitutes that are forced
to do it to be helped by police. I do not think the government's role
to be should to legislate what is goes into my body, your body, or
anybody else’s body. I do not think it should legislate morality (I am
Catholic btw, and do have a sense of morality). As long as something
does not hurt another party, or put them in danger, I do not think that
the government should legislate it. Thanks for the response, and have
a good one. -Jim

Date: Mon Jul 02 19:38:34 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jimmy:

I am not blurring any lines; I am talking about straight up
morality, and representative civil law in a land of moral people. I’m
sure you will agree that representative law should be based on a
commonly held community sense of right and wrong. Otherwise it would be
dictated law, and we would not be a free country. The basic,
fundamental question is, always, what kind of a people are we?

As I’ve said a blue million times, in a blue million places on
this site, in a blue million ways, the Constitutional power, authority
and governing ability of our federal government is limited and
enumerated, by the Constitution. If it isn’t in the Constitution, the
federal government should not even be addressing it. Our system of
federalism insists that the governing power that affects the citizen the
most must reside at the most local levels of government, and that those
government representatives who wield that power should reside in the
area affected.

If an American loves prostitution, for instance, he can move to
Nevada. If he loves the idea of open, in-your-face public faggotry, he
can move to San Francisco. If he likes to smoke dope, there are many
local jurisdictions where he can do that. I don’t know where you got
your statistics, but I tend to doubt that San Francisco or Nevada or any
of the dope-smoking jurisdictions are any safer than any place else in
America. I would almost bet the opposite, for the simple reason that
immoral people are less predictable than moral people.

Regarding STD prevention, there is one and only one cause of
STDs, that being illicit sex. There is no other cause. The way to
eliminate STDs is to practice chastity. Very simple; nothing to it.

The real problem here in America is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is always – always
– the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are trying to force their
chosen behaviors on the larger community, and always involving the
highest levels of government. Most areas and most people in America
won’t put up with that, and the Constitution is supposed to protect us
from it.

We have had over a hundred years of Leftist nibbling away at that
Constitutional principle, and here we are, looking at the Obamacare
Court decision.

God help us.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Jul 03 09:32:43 2012
From: jim
Email: Location: Comment:

"It is always – always – the Liberals, not the conservatives, who are
trying to force their chosen behaviors on the larger community, and
always involving the highest levels of government." That is not true.
The prohibition of alcohol, and prostitution, is a large result of the
neo-cons, not Goldwater conservatives, taking a view and forcing it down
people's throat. Prostitution is the only crime where the motive is
the only reason that something is illegal. Sex in and of itself is
legal(though I respect your decision to life a chaste lifestyle), so why
should sex for money between two consensual adults be illegal? I
understand that you make think of it as wrong, and I kind of think that
too, but I do not think we should spend government resources fighting
consensual prostitution. And Mr. Biorseth, I disagree with you when
you say "I’m sure you will agree that representative law should be based
on a commonly held community sense of right and wrong. " I think the
government's role, especially the federal government, should be to allow
for the most freedom possible, as long as your freedom does not
physically or economically harm someone else. If you do something that
harms someone else, arrest them, but if you are not doing anything to
hurt anyone, and are only hurting yourself, the government should not be
forced to stop it. I will probably let you go after this comment, so
I just want to say that though we disagree, I have enjoyed this brief
sharing of ideas, and though I do not agree with a lot of what is on
your website, I do enjoy listening to your arguments, which are very
well laid out.

Thanks, -Jim

Date: Tue 03 20 18:29:SS 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

You’ve got your history wrong. Prohibition sentiment was stirred
up by the vandalism and near terrorism of one Carrie Nation, who, if
she had been a man, probably would have been shot by someone. But she
was a woman, and she was able to inject an anti-liquor sentiment into
the public argument to such a degree that Congress was moved to submit
the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol in America, in a bi-partisan but
Democrat-dominated House. Wilson – a drinker – vetoed it; Congress
over-rode his veto. Maybe you call that movement conservative; I don’t.

As I said before, the most important principle of our
Constitution is that it protects the American citizen from the
government. The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the
opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his
private activity, with negative results to show for it. It was done
“for the good of the people” and it grew the government, migrated power
from the people to the government, and limited liberty. That is not
conservative.

The only federal level laws against prostitution on the
books involve human trafficking, importation of aliens for immoral
purposes, coercion and enticement for immoral purposes, interstate and
foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, and prostitution near
military and naval bases. Any other anti-prostitution laws are state
or local laws or ordinances, as they should be.

In America, the Conservative motive is to adhere to original intent
in the simple English wording of the Constitution. And, in America,
the Liberal motive is to impose something deemed “good” on all the
citizens, regardless of any existing Constitutional limitations or
restrictions. Sometimes with the best of intentions followed by
negative unintended consequences, sometimes with evil intent followed by
a purposeful and intended migration of power from the people to the
government.

Liberals, for instance, would like to legalize prostitution and
drugs everywhere, and to hell with what the citizenry thinks about it.
Conservatives would never do that.

Libertarians only think they are conservative. They are
Liberal. They seek to impose their favorite vices on all the rest of us
at the federal level. It is never enough for them to just satisfy
their own desires; they need to involve all the rest of us. They want
everyone else to, at the very least, approve of their chosen behavior and not speak ill of it, under force of law.

You say "The 18th Amendment, like all Liberalizing laws, did the
opposite – it put the government more in charge of the citizen and his
private activity." Laws against prostitution, drugs, and gambling, puts
government more involved in a citizen's private activity.

Date: Wed Jul 04 07:20:29 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jim:

Happy Independence Day.

Your statement is quite correct; that is why such laws properly
belong at local and state levels of government. The Constitutional
problem is that people like you want to impose legalization of those
activities, and more, over every square inch of American territory,
involving the highest level of government, and you don’t particularly
give a damn what the rest of us think about it or what our Constitution
says about it.

You don’t even seek to use any legitimate, legal, representative
method to do it. You corrupt the legislative process for your purposes,
as was done in Obamacare I, or, you go around the legislative process
and use the courts, as was done in Obamacare II and in the legalization
of Abortion in America.

And then you accuse us of restricting your liberty? And you oppose even our bringing these topics up as political issues? You seek to legally redefine marriage all across America, and you think we are somehow the immoral ones for resisting your efforts?

You may label that position Libertarian, but I call it anti-Constitution, and therefore flat out anti-American.

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic
Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option
June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .

Regards,

Vic

Language and Tone Statement

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to just stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our high Roman Catholic and Constitutional American standards of Truth, logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, obscene, blindly & doggedly anti-Catholic, anti-American, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, be prepared to back it up, keep it clean, keep it civil, and it will be published. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the Hard Left is what it always was, the New Leftist Liberals are what they are, and the Internet is what it is.

"Clickbait" advertising links are not acceptable for posting here.

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elitist Culturally Marxist Pure Authoritarians cannot and will not tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their rigid authoritarian, anti-equality, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-male, sexist, pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual, anti-white, racist, anti-Western, anti-American, Globalist, anti-Nation, blatantly immoral, totally intolerant and bigoted point of view.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Silence in the face of evil is speaking. "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

“An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of
secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III

“Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creatures.
What you are in God's sight is what you are and nothing more”—Justice Clarence Thomas

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects redemption." Pope Saint John Paul the GreatDOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men-when we can do it-is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III

If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the governemt is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then
there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning,
and America has lost its grounding and its very purpose for being. Anti-American-Court

Live Interviews

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." Pope Pius V

"All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

Click the image above topublish your essay or article here,to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles andReprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Still Time To Get It Right. “Once you understand the role of energy in everything, you can begin to appreciate why there's simply nothing more important to get right. Energy is at the root of everything. If you have sufficient energy, anything is possible. But without it, everything grinds to a halt.” Chris Martenson

The Heresy of Chrislam. Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.

NewsletterCatholic American ThinkerFree E-zine Subscription

Email

You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you theCatholic American ThinkerNewsletterand absolutely nothing else.

"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII

"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi

Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston
Churchill

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judaeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.